Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

FixCam Week in Preview AND a Fix Poll

Sunshine dominates this week's presidential calendar with a primary vote tomorrow in Florida, and back-to-back debates in California on Wednesday and Thursday.

The Sunshine State primary is the final vote before the cavalcade of states on Feb. 5 and is regarded as crucial for several of the Republican candidates. A win for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) could well seal the party nod for him while anything other than a victory or close second-place finish for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani likely all-but-ends his chances at the nomination. Former governors Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Mike Huckabee (Ark.) seem likely to go on no matter the results tomorrow. But, for Romney, a win over McCain would provide a major boost heading into Feb. 5.

Regardless of the outcome, however, it's likely that all four top Republican candidates will make the trip out to Simi Valley and the Ronald Reagan presidential library on Wednesday night for a debate being sponsored by Politico, CNN and the Los Angeles Times. Given the rising level of animosity between McCain and Romney of late, this debate could provide some real back and forth as the stakes rise ever higher in advance of Feb. 5.

The following night it's the Democrats' turn -- this time from the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles. This debate will be the first since the extremely contentious gathering on Martin Luther King Day last Monday, and the stunningly large victory by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) on Saturday in South Carolina. The Clinton campaign downplayed that victor, as to be expected , but it will be interesting to see what tone their candidate takes toward Obama on Thursday night. After all, who can say who is the frontrunner anymore?

Since we will be writing and talking about Feb. 5 nonstop over the next week, we decided that we need to choose an official Fix name for the proceedings. Your options are below. Whichever name you pick is the one we'll go with as we write about Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday over the coming days. Vote early and often!

Just to note, for those of us, or our neighbours, caught by the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, the memories are still very fresh and casual use of the word evokes that massive loss of life over many countries.

I doubt this will stop many using it lightly but please consider whether you'd call it Katrina Tuesday in Louisiana as this has a similar feeling for some of us.

"Bush inherited a military that had all active-duty Army divisions rated at the highest readiness levels and that was capable of fighting a two-front war. He will leave behind a military facing the worst readiness crisis in a generation, with not a single active-duty or reserve brigade 'fully combat ready.'"

IS THIS TRUE?

I would have assumed that combat readiness is actually far superior now, just because we have so many new combat vets.

"Virtually alone among Abrahamic theologies, Mormon scripture interprets the fall of Adam and Eve as a providential act: "If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden ... And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." "

The fall of man is a good thing? And Jesus and the devil are brothers? Sounds like a devil worshipping cult to me.

Again, get fox and rush and teh right wing propogandidsts off the air and I'm done blogging forever. Just rtrying to recipracate in a small way. Tit for tat. Shallow generalization for generalization.

Since this post entry is done for the day I will continue. If any non-gop'er wants me to stop just ask. :)

"One of the central paradoxes of the Latter-day Saint movement, then, is that Mormons want to belong to a larger Christian fellowship when it's socially and politically convenient to do so, while hewing to a set of beliefs most Christians find outrageous and following a prophet who has told them they are the only true Christians. Givens quotes architectural historian Paul Lawrence Anderson on the peculiar design qualities of Mormon churches, which reflected "a delicate balancing act [of] wanting to be different, but not different enough to be marginalized."

Another of Givens' conundrums is that Mormons belong to the most hierarchical and authoritarian church this side of the Vatican, yet one that also has "fanatically individualistic" qualities; every Mormon, after all, is "vouchsafed the right to personal, literal, dialogic revelation with God." Mormons employ an epistemological certainty that may sound like the language of evangelical Protestantism -- "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God" -- but Smith's theology offers no "born again" moment of certain salvation. Exaltation and godlike perfection lie eons in the future, at the end of a long and difficult road of spiritual and intellectual learning.
"

By Andrew O'Hehir

like the gop. Hypocrites. Be one nation when it's convieant. When they want something from you. Other than that it should be "seperate but equal". Everything about the mormons and gop runs counter to what this great nation was founded on. For all their patriotic propoganda.

divide and conquer traitors to be pitied, not feared. To fear teh fascist gop is to give them power. That ship has sailed. We have the internet now. Let them try america. do not fear the tim mcviegh fascists. They can only win the short term. Fascism always loses over the long term.

Just how crazy is Al Gore? That was the question that popped, once again, into my brain as I read a January 24 Agence France Press news story out of the Davos meeting of business and political elite. Gore asserted that, "the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years..."

I was instantly reminded of the story that ran in The New York Times in August 2000 claiming that the Pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years. It wasn't, of course, because people who have actually been to the Arctic quickly noted that, in the summer, some ice actually does melt there. The Times retracted it three weeks later.

"Givens doesn't go anywhere near that far, but he's a rigorous and fair-minded scholar who handles some of the touchiest topics in Mormon history with grace and dexterity. As he admits, the question of whether Latter-day Saints can be considered Christians does not yield a universally acceptable or historically obvious answer, no matter what Mormons may claim. You might say that the answer depends on who is asking the question, and when. Throughout their church's relatively brief history, Mormons have been torn between a desire to separate themselves from other Christians and other Americans and a desire to assimilate and be accepted. The "dynamic tension" that Givens detects between these poles runs like an electrical current through all the other paradoxes and contradictions that he believes define Mormon culture.

If the assimilationist ethic is ascendant in Mormonism at the moment, with Mitt Romney apparently trying to sell himself to evangelical Christian conservatives as a slightly eccentric fellow traveler, the separatist tendency remains imprinted in the faith's cultural and theological DNA. At the very beginning of Smith's prophetic career, when he was a 14-year-old boy in the woods of western New York state, Jesus Christ personally appeared to him and instructed him to steer clear of all existing Christian churches, saying that "all their creeds were an abomination" in his sight.
"

Does the mormon church run counter to the founding principles of america? If so what other faith, if any does? None, is the answer.

"To their respective followers, Mohammed and Joseph Smith are not the inventors of new denominations but restorers of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic tradition of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Even the language of the two faiths' central tenets is strikingly similar. In reciting the Shahadah, or principal declaration of faith, Muslims may say: "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger," or "I testify that Mohammed is the Messenger of God." One of the most frequent forms of "testimony" in a Mormon meetinghouse comes when a worshiper rises to declare: "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God." Both religions make claims to absolute and universal truth, and those declarations are meant to reflect knowledge rather than belief in the ordinary theological sense, which may be tinged with doubt. In answering the oft-asked question, "Are Mormons Christian?" one might ask, only half facetiously, whether Muslims are Christian too. "

"In his introduction, Givens speculates that Mormonism is on the path toward becoming "the first new world faith since Islam." That may be premature, since the global ratio of Muslims to Mormons is roughly 115 to 1. Still, the longer you consider the parallels between these two faiths, the more provocative they become, which I'm pretty sure was not Givens' intention. Most obviously, both religions involve divine revelations directly communicated to a charismatic latter-day prophet, who rapidly attracts followers but is widely viewed by outsiders as a huckster, a fake or even a madman. "

By Andrew O'Hehir

What's the differance gop. What makes one group terrorists and the other patriots? both are killing innocents. both are fringe radicals. I cry when I see the attacks of 9/11. every single time. I am a strong man and can admit this.

But we cannot stop terrorism, if that is the goal, by making more of it. It's all for money and power in america. the sooner we ALL acknowledge that the faster we can marginalize the fox's and rush's of the world. It looks to be happening. Time will tell.

We must end terrorism. The gop wants endless war. If you want to end terrorism, you must put and end to the terrorists. The gop. Making money and supplying the terrorists is treason. time to hold them to account. To those that are scared to do that, or scared to lose face, the price you pay is far greater than a few political "leaders". to allow the gop treason is to destroy america. Do not destroy our country america. America is a nation of americnas. It is not the gop's to rape or destroy. They are a group of america, not america. Make them remember this people

The differance is we can all see what al gore is saying. He has prove and science. the mormons and the gop have neither. Neither PRoof nor science. All they have is propognada and money. and the propoganda is to keep that moeny. Without the propoganda the gop is done. Enjoy your irrelevance.

"Mitt is undoubtedly the weaker general election candidate. He is not trustworthy, and is light on foriegn policy and military affairs. We don't need a CEO robber-baron for president who needs on the job training for CIC." Proud at 12:36 PM

and

"It has been Romney's tactic all along to run ads that distort his opponents records..." Proud at 1:50 PM

I cannot believe it - but I have to say that I agree with Proud!!!

Proud, I believe your assessment of Romney is right on the money.

Romney's greatest strength is pandering and promising anything just to get a vote. His skills were on display in Michigan when he basically promised the auto workers that he could, somehow, reverse the tsunami-like trends of globalization.

I actually agree with Proud that Mitt "is not trustworthy". I further agree that Mitt is "light on foreign policy and military affairs".

Proud, I also think you are right in characterizing Mitt a "CEO robber-baron" and he certainly has been distorting his opponent's records, hasn't he?

For example, the Green Church believes that it is the only true church on the face of the earth. They believe that God and Jesus showed themselves to one, Al gore, when he was 15 years of age in the luxery hotel in Washington DC, in 1979.

God and Jesus told the teenager Al to go to a nearby Capitol hill, where a sacred record, written on banana leaves, was deposited. This record was written by prophets who had lived anciently upon the American continent. By the gift and power of God, Al was to translate the record and bring it forth to the world, as the Book Earth in the balance. And the rest is history...

If I'm digging in the ground or in caves, I'm looking for something that is tangible on this world. Gold, ie money. I guess so was Mr. Smith, in another way. What is teh LDS worth today? that's a lot of money. I think practicing mormons have to pay 15% to the church. Like all with teh gop and much of what they do. propoganda for profit and power. Hasn't changed much in the past 2 centuries.

"Well, because Mormon history is different, that's why. Judaism and Catholicism have long traditions of internal debate and intellectual engagement with the world, and within those faiths there is tremendous diversity of belief. Religious Jews and Catholics may believe various things that seem unlikely to outsiders, but they are not required to believe "in a set of scriptures of origin so implausible as to preclude serious engagement" by mainstream scholars, as Givens himself puts it. Mormonism may not stand or fall on a young-earth creation or on evolution, but it does stand or fall on the question of whether a 22-year-old man in Palmyra, N.Y., was given a gold-plated book of ancient scripture by an angel named Moroni and then -- let me say this one more time -- translated it with his face inside his hat.

Fortunately for the future of Mormonism, 180 years is just long enough that the same mythical scrim that protects the empty tomb of Jesus from debunkers has begun to descend over Joseph Smith. One might say that the "sacred distance" between man and God that Smith collapsed has pretty well been restored; with the sole exception of the 1978 proclamation admitting blacks to the priesthood, no Mormon prophet has announced a direct revelation in many years. While there is little or no historical, linguistic, genetic or archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon, neither the stories it spins nor the story of its discovery can be disproven at this point.

Givens argues that this paradoxical faith and its tormented history have now produced a distinctive ethnic culture that is buoyant and optimistic, but also oddly cloistered; that is both communitarian and fiercely individualistic; that can seem ultra-American at one moment and anti-American the next. People who grew up in Mormon society and remain committed to it, according to science-fiction author Orson Scott Card (probably the Mormon writer best known outside the LDS world), "are only nominally members of the American community. We can fake it, but we're always speaking a foreign language." That's pretty much how I saw those casserole-baking Mormon moms in our town; they were awfully nice to me, but they and I clearly did not belong to the same nation.
"

"you make me want to dig up my back yard proud. Maybe I can start my own religon."

Don't start digging until you start hearing the voices. Also please note that there is no evidence that Mr Smith actually dug up his backyard. He told people that's what happened, and a lot of people believe that's what happened. But Mr Smith failed, while he was alive, to ever offer proof of his story, other than the translated book of Mormon, which he dictated to his wife, if I'm not mistaken.

We got the "war on islam". what's next gop. What is you next random target? So I can be prepared. blonde hair and blue eyes? Asians?

What about the war on reason? That's a good one for you. It's the only way you can keep this up. Even still you people would not give up. Just like the terrorists you people sponser. Like them there is no surrendering. the right are fascists and the terrorists are terrorists. But why?

Why are terrorists terrorists? And why do the people next to them not tell them to stand down? Why do are teh gop fascists. Why do they sabotage their nation? what do they get out of it? Why do their "religous" leaders and the people next to them not tell them to stand down?

Who's more stubborn? Who has more to lose and more to gain? What do the terroists have to gain, what do they have to lose? they lose everything and gain very little. The gop? the gop risks nothing, but credibility and power, and all they get in return is low taxes.

Without the gop and those like them, their are no terrorist. Without those supplying them for money and power, they are not a threat to us. the gop wants perpetual war. they will take it if we don't allow it. TREASON. Will always be treason, regardless of newspeak.

But this is america, right? Where gop treason in encouraged. The real cause of terrorism in the world, is the gop fascist mindset. Without the capitalists starvign teh world for profit. Without them arming the world for profit. We have peace. Beware of those would would sabotage peace for personal profit.

Now that the Mormon prophet and leader Mr. Hinkley has passed away (I wonder which supreme level he attained in the afterlife?), what better time to review some of the tenets of the Mormon faith as they prepare to elect their next prophet.

For example, the Mormon Church believes that it is the only true church on the face of the earth. They believe that God and Jesus showed themselves to one, Joseph Smith, when he was 15 years of age in the rural township of Palmyra, New York, in 1820.

God and Jesus told the teenager Joseph to go to a nearby hill in Manchester, New York, where a sacred record, written on gold plates, was deposited. This record was written by prophets who had lived anciently upon the American continent. By the gift and power of God, Joseph was to translate the record and bring it forth to the world, as the Book of Mormon. And the rest is history...

the big government is so smart - like Al gore (GPA 1.7) that they can predict future military deployments 60 years into the future. They can control the weather too. and cure all medical problems and solve poverty. all you need to do is BELIEVE in the new religion.
spectator - your ignorance and fidelity to liberal looniness is no display as usual.

Nations surrender and are waged war on jd. Not random individuals. You gop'ers are not that naive to believe this war is about anything other than control at home oil and stock prices. coem on, your not that naive are you?

We cannot wage war on terrorists any more than we can wage war on drugs. You cannot force chrsitianity or any other religon, any more than you can force a nation to be democractic. And to try all is fascism.

instead of using 1946, perhaps I should have used 1944 or 43. That is a useful analog to our current situation: we are perhaps halfway through the current conflict with fundamentalist Islam (and some would say we are merely at the 'end of the beginning'...).

The problem is, according to Claudia's template, the war is over, and therefore casualties should cease. Funny, I didn't see the notice of Al Quaida's surrender in the papers.

bsimon, Contrarily, I think it was Romney who was and is trying to change the focus and the debate since his losses in Iowa and NH. He has been desparate to get a 'message' and now the gods of the stock market have shined on him momentarily in the form of a recession. How he must thought his prayers had been answered!

It has been Romney's tactic all along to run ads that distort his opponents records, e.g. his ads about the immigration bill where he constantly calls it amnesty, even though it was not.

The fact that now Romney's own words are being used against him is fair game, even though he tries to have it both ways...that dog won't hunt.

Anyone who knows anything about history knows the situations in Japan and Germany are poor analogies to Iraq. There was NEVER any sort of insurgency against our troops in either country. The local populace was overwhelmingly happy to see the prior regimes removed from power.

In fact, I would love to find out the last time an American soldier was murdered by a Japanese or German. I've honestly never heard of such a thing.

The Philippines is even poorer as an analogy. When WW2 started we had already been there for 40 years or so.

One other possible analogy is Korea, and I don't know of even the most pacifistic lefty or other nut who has called for our troops there to be removed. Maybe Ron Paul, but who cares what he says?

I asked
"Why on earth is he finding it so difficult to make the case that reigning in gov't spending will be good for the economy?"

dave responds
"Because that does not make a good general campaign issue for a Republican. The Democratic response would be A) what are you going to cut/who gets the pinkslips and B) How can you be so irresponsible to ignore the problems like healthcare, etc."

While I agree with your response as a stand alone issue, the original context was that McCain is trying turn the conversation away from the economy towards an issue on which he is more credible. Frankly its strating to remind me of Rudy '9/11' Giuliani. McCain needs to do a better job addressing domestic issues and taking on Romney head-on, rather than effectively conceding the point and trying to argue the war is a more important issue. That won't be a winning strategy for the primaries or the general election.

JD writes
"So, what was the US casualty toll like during the middle to final phases of the war? ... So, I accept your apology in advance."

Sadly, JD, that was not the question initially asked. The question was (I paraphrase) "What would the American people have thought in 1946 had they known we'd still be in Germany, Japan, Italy & the Phillipenes 60 years later." Claudia was right to point out that in 1946 the casualty rate was far different from the rate we saw in 2007. I think you owe her the apology, rather than a childish rephrasing of the question in order to belittle her response.

Q: Has the stock market been better, on average, when a Republican or Democrat has been in office? Do you have a chart that shows this?

A: Many investors assume that Republican presidents are better for the stock market. That's not true.

To get the answer to your question, I turned to the respected Stock Trader's Almanac by Yale and Jeffrey Hirsch. This book tracks and organizes historical facts about the stock market, and the 2005 edition addresses your question on page 42.

Using the Dow Jones industrial average as the benchmark, Stock Trader's Almanac shows a $10,000 investment compounded during Democratic presidencies since 1901 would be worth $279,705 after 48 years. The same $10,000 investment during 56 Republican years would have been worth just $78,699. If you adjust for inflation, the value of a $10,000 investment under Democratic presidents is $33,426.The inflation-adjusted value under Republican presidents is $26,145.'

"claudialong - "...Democrats' message is "so explicitly socialist." Don't be surprised if this is part of a trend."

By the tone of your post, I am assuming that you find this assertion so outrageous that all that needs to be done is to state it. Perhaps by including a few facts as to why the Dems message is not "socialist" or why Wall Street is NOT worried about Democratic control of government you could put such silly rhetoric to bed. But to just simply (re)state it does not an argument or rebuttal make.

Posted by: dave | January 28, 2008 01:19 PM
"

So by some magic the democrats are somehow the balme of everything in the world. no matter what. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

see how far zero credibility gets teh gop. Oh wait. We are already seeing where no accountability and credibility is getting them. It's eliminating them party for a generation. So sorry continue

That's with your people in control zouk. Sabotuers investied in deafeat. See what happens whent eh aemrican people are in control of their own destiny again. The zouks and the world will be forced to enjoy their irrelevance. or let it destroy them. Either way, I'm ready for it. And so is america.

I hear you mikeb. You'll never catch me saying anything bad about edwards. Unless him staying in enables clinton which doesn't look to be the case. Him and obama would be the perfect candidate, I'll give you that.

To me it's bigger though. Altough I respect and agree with you. But we need to bring in more people to make this work. Edwards supporters are going to Obama anyway. Edwards and obama are similar. Although i would be very very happy with this ticket.

I just want to keep the establishment and the old folk involved. I want to end the us vs them. Althgouh they deserve all out war (politically) like they gave us, we are patriots. We do what is best for the nation, and do not choose party over country.

We can't throw these people away as they did us. We need a dodd or biden or clinton invloved. Yeah the reids and di fi and pelosi's are sell-outs. Yeah they are opurtunists. but it's time to re-untie the nation, not continue the fight. those that would sabotage that united nation need to be pointed out.

Edwards could be involded in the economy if that's what he wants to do really. But we can't be change only. We need to have one foot in the past and one in the future. Take the compromise. :) Better than two feet in the past.

Once we start his change train, it's not stopping. It will be major this time. All american wars waged by america on aerica should end. the "war on terror". The "war on drugs".

When this happens along with the minorities being given power for the first time, the result will be huge. One nation, under God, undivisable, with liberty and justice for all." Remember that :)

claudialong - "...Democrats' message is "so explicitly socialist." Don't be surprised if this is part of a trend."

By the tone of your post, I am assuming that you find this assertion so outrageous that all that needs to be done is to state it. Perhaps by including a few facts as to why the Dems message is not "socialist" or why Wall Street is NOT worried about Democratic control of government you could put such silly rhetoric to bed. But to just simply (re)state it does not an argument or rebuttal make.

Yawn-so the stupid, elitist faction of the Kennedy family endorses Obama-that would be Caroline Kennedy, elitist, never worked a day in her life, I'm hip because I'm voting for a black man. Ted is settling personal scores with the Clintons.

At least there are SOME Kennedys left with a brain, who really care about their country, and want it to be in the most experienced hands possible! Kathleen (former lt. gov. of Maryland) Kerry, and Bobby!

As for Ted, well, he has "issues" - like leaving a young woman in the bottom of a lake while he escapes and goes off for a day or so to think about how he would escape responsibility....not exactly the endorsement I would be looking for, that's for sure!

"'Better dead than red? Conservatives on Fox News, CNN accuse Democrats of being "explicitly socialist" and "communist" - Fox News recently hosted a discussion, exploring whether market instability is the fault of Democrats. As the Republican network saw it, Wall Street is worried that a Dem will win the presidency in November, and as a result, investors are feel anxiety about the future. This anxiety leads to volatility, and before you know it, presto -- Dems are to blame for the market. Most notably, Fox News featured analysis from Jonathan Hoenig, who (I kid you not) represented CapitalistPig Asset Management, and told Fox News viewers that Democrats' message is "so explicitly socialist." Don't be surprised if this is part of a trend. Glenn Beck, resident clown at CNN's Headline News, launched his own red scare on the air this week.'

Posted by: claudialong | January 28, 2008 12:50 PM
"

After that why would any non-fascist go on that station? Obama's a terrorists. Edwards is a homosexual. The democrats are terrorists.

they are not news. They should not be treated as news. ow much longer do you peopel think they got left? Before the rigth turns on them for their lies and spin?

i thought it would have happened by now. i guess some people do not care at all about credibility or how they are percieved. Espiecally when they are making fortunes perpetuating that lie. Used to be called treason. now it is capitalism.

Just because they should not be forced off the air, does not mean they should be on the air. Can we put a live execution on tv? Why no, or why yes? What is the differance? Why are teh skin heads and klu klux klan not on tv? Just because we all have free speech, does mean mean we should get paid for that free speech. Let the rush's and fox's of the world put out parental advisory cd's. Give them their free speech. See how often they sacrafice their credibility when they are not getting paid to do so

bsimon - "Why on earth is he finding it so difficult to make the case that reigning in gov't spending will be good for the economy?"

Because that does not make a good general campaign issue for a Republican. The Democratic response would be A) what are you going to cut/who gets the pinkslips and B) How can you be so irresponsible to ignore the problems like healthcare, etc. Few politicians ever make a living off of promises to cut jobs and programs, especially in an economic environment such as this. It takes a gifted speaker to be able to communicate the merit in it and I don't know that that is McCain.

"In that, however, and due to some of the attack ads he has run, he reminds me all to much of the Clinton's - cynical, power hungry, in the race becasue it's all about him, without any clue whatsoever about public service."

And that is why the race will likely be Hillary vs Mittens. The only good thing about that race is that my boy Mike Bloomberg might jump in a drop a couple hundred million or so on his run.

I read Newt's new book over the weekend. He is brilliant and does a very good job of outlining America's problems.
His basic thesis is that 85% of the country pretty much agrees on what our problems are and it is not Red vs blue but rather Red, white and blue vs the loony left.

for example, anyone with a bit of sense would agree that:
We need to close the borders
We need to fix social security
federal education is broken

Yet the loony left goes on as if these problems don't matter. the government bureaucracy has handed us:
Katrina, Iraq, Medicare, inner city schools who graduate less than 40% of the students. Yet the loony libs insist that more of the same will easily solve these problems.

We need to:
1. privatize social security and take the money away from spending pols
2. eliminate the stranglhold on education from the teachers unions and administrators
3.cut bureacracy, taxes, regulation

the Dem congress has clearly indicated they plan on business as usual - that is, do nothing. in an entire year they have accomplished zilch. and their candidates are hoping to get elected to expand the history of failure. spend more, fail more. bill clinton said it best when he talked about his record on terrorism:

I tried but I failed.

It is time to break the cycle of inaction and sloth and bring in some new blood

rufus... with all due respect Obama-Edwards! And, for those thinking that Romney would beat any Democrat, you're being delussional. Now, I honestly have no idea whether Mr. Romney would be a good President or not. He appears to be a moderate, play acting as a conservative, in order to win the primaries. In that, however, and due to some of the attack ads he has run, he reminds me all to much of the Clinton's - cynical, power hungry, in the race becasue it's all about him, without any clue whatsoever about public service. The reason McCain is different, no matter what his policy states are, is we are pretty certain he is running becasue he genuinely wants to serve. That makes him cousins with Obama and Edwards (and Biden and Kuchinich and Dodd and Charles Rangel and Pelosi and Huckabee and Ronald Reagan ...Agree or disagree about policy, we actually have lots of good conservatives and liberals and moderates who are into genuine public service).

'Better dead than red? Conservatives on Fox News, CNN accuse Democrats of being "explicitly socialist" and "communist" - Fox News recently hosted a discussion, exploring whether market instability is the fault of Democrats. As the Republican network saw it, Wall Street is worried that a Dem will win the presidency in November, and as a result, investors are feel anxiety about the future. This anxiety leads to volatility, and before you know it, presto -- Dems are to blame for the market. Most notably, Fox News featured analysis from Jonathan Hoenig, who (I kid you not) represented CapitalistPig Asset Management, and told Fox News viewers that Democrats' message is "so explicitly socialist." Don't be surprised if this is part of a trend. Glenn Beck, resident clown at CNN's Headline News, launched his own red scare on the air this week.'

"A war against Iraq could cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars, play havoc with an already depressed domestic economy and tip the world into recession because of the adverse effect on oil prices, inflation and interest rates, an academic study [by William Nordhaus, Sterling professor of economics at Yale University] has warned." [Independent, 11/16/02]

"If war with Iraq drags on longer than the few weeks or months most are predicting, corporate revenues will be flat for the coming year and will put the U.S. economy at risk of recession, according to a poll of chief financial officers." [CBS MarketWatch, 3/20/03]

"If the conflict wears on or, worse, spreads, the economic consequences become very serious. Late last year, George Perry at the Brookings Institution ran some simulations and found that after taking into account a reasonable use of oil reserves, a cut in world oil production of just 6.5 percent a year would send the United States and the world into recession." [Robert Shapiro, former undersecretary of commerce 10/2/02]

"Gerd HÃ¤usler, the IMF's director of international capital markets, said that 'purely from a financial markets perspective, a serious conflict with Iraq would not be a very healthy development.' ... HÃ¤usler said there could be a repeat of what happened in 1990 following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when there was a sharp rise in oil prices." [World Bank, 9/02]

All the liars and propogandists and shaking in their boots. The media (witht heir gop love clinton included), the internet propoganidists and meat puppets. Old people who don't know what time it is but put their finger int he wind.

Basically everone with no heart and no mind of their own is terrified. The dittoheads are terrified. They must wait for their mind to be made up by others. Funny to watch, sad to see. But terrifying for others.

Terrifying tuesday. Not for me of course. I don't change by others. for those that must let others to their thinking for them, if must be horribly scary.

The dittoheads don't even know they are done. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

they have to wait until teh elections to find out very time. So much for empowering the people. The propogandists grip is done. Get ready for the future. Do not fear it old people. To fear people to the people and people thinking for themselves, is not the place to be. Stop being hypocrites and sabotagint this great nation. Get with the program. Or move somewhere where you will be happy. With less freedom

He is NOT saying that he wants to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran tomorrow. Also, his quip about having bases in Iraq for 100 years was an off-hand joke, if you examine the context (which is apparently lost on most of you).

BTW, if someone said in 1946 that we'd still have bases in Japan, Germany, Phillipines, and Italy 60 years later, would you have reacted with this same foolishness?

"Yes, BUT. Voters don't vote solely on the issues. Voters also consider intangible aspects of candidates that aren't pollable or easily pinned down. In 2000, it was "who would you rather have a beer with".

bsimon: no argument generally, but the war is such a big issue, it's hard to see voters discounting it that much.

also, and this is something i heard on the radio recently (not sure where). McCain -- and it's hard to argue this -- looks OLD. And he is pretty cranky too. You know how the admeisters can work wonders with unflattering pictures. They'd make McCain look ancient. Reagan could avoid this fate because of his black hair. McCain doesn't have that luxury.

I agree with Blert. (Though I'm a bit conflicted about his name.) Romney is the perfect candidate for Democrats, because he's likely to lose and would probably be a fairly moderate president. I don't like him, but I'd much rather see him get the nomination than someone like Giuliani or Huckabee.

"Unless Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I would not expect to see a great turnout from the Republican base. They are dispirited and all of the remaining Republican contenders have serious drawbacks as far as the base is concerned."

Not that Huckabee has much of a shot at the nomination now, but he would certainly appeal to the base. OTOH, he would get easily exposed for his simplistic foreign policy views.

bhoomes, Mitt is undoubtedly the weaker general election candidate. He is not trustworthy, and is light on foriegn policy and military affairs. We don't need a CEO robber-baron for president who needs on the job training for CIC.

John McCain has picked up scads of endorsemnts from established R party figures, including moderates like former Senators John C. Danforth and Howard H. Baker Jr. - and conservatives like Senator Tom Coburn and former Representative Jack F. Kemp.

This weekend's endorsement by FL Gov. Charlie Crist and Sen. Martinez was huge!
Trustworthiness and character is something one cannot buy...even though Mitt has 10 times as many ads running on tv in Florida than anybody else, it remains to be seen whether all his millions made off the backs of broken companies will be money well spent.

Spectator2 writes
"[McCain's] staunch war support would be his achilles' heel. He is simply out of step with a large majority of Americans on that issue (kind of a big one, no?)."

Yes, BUT. Voters don't vote solely on the issues. Voters also consider intangible aspects of candidates that aren't pollable or easily pinned down. In 2000, it was "who would you rather have a beer with". I think in 2008 it will be about who has the most consistent & predictable judgement and who can most credibly move us - together - in a new direction. People might not like McCain's position on the war, but he at least has a consistent position & has a reputation for cutting through the BS & demanding accountability from the Pentagon (i.e. Rumsfeld) for unsatisfactory results. In short, I think voters want a leader more than they want someone with whom they agree on every issue.

I can't see how Romney unites a party behind him at all, or even, as AndyR3 suggests, how he unites evangelicals. Romney lost Iowa largely because evangelicals dislike him. He has a past of social liberalism, and his Mormonism earns the distrust of many Christians. Of any constituency in the Republican base, evangelicals are probably among the most skeptical of Romney. With Huckabee apparently sinking fast, where these evangelicals will go isn't clear, but I doubt Romney will excite them.

Nor will Romney excite strong conservatives. His record in Massachusetts paints him very differently from how he paints himself on the campaign trail, and this will be exploited to no end in the general election, if not before then.

The only group that Romney may earn reliable support from are business interests. Romney has strong connections there, but even for people merely concerned about the economy, Romney's dismal results in Massachusetts won't earn him any support in the election.

Romney really is the ideal candidate for Democrats. They can brand him a flip-flopper, an economic menace, and a panderer, and even if Romney wins, his past record of pursuing universal health care, supporting abortion and gay rights, etc., will mean that the Democrats still get their way on a lot of important issues.

It's hard to say that any of the Republicans doesn't have serious shortcomings as a candidate, but Romney's flaws run particularly deep.

Unless Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I would not expect to see a great turnout from the Republican base. They are dispirited and all of the remaining Republican contenders have serious drawbacks as far as the base is concerned.

bsimon: I think that generally speaking, McCain would be far better than Romney at pulling in independents, but his staunch war support would be his achilles' heel. He is simply out of step with a large majority of Americans on that issue (kind of a big one, no?).

In general, no matter the matchup, there will be two flawed candidates. Who can better exploit the opponent's flaws -- not necessarily make the case for himself or herself -- will win.

If you really want flip-flops, all you need is hillary on the war. It is not the nuanced flip-flops of Romney, nor the grating flip-flops of Mccain - it is the pandering for votes type of flop. Just like campaigning in florida. never take a clinton at their word on anything - even golf.

The market economy is currrently pricing in the cost of a possible Democrat victory in the fall. the congrsssional victory of last year is now fully priced in and the market has not gained all year because of it. the specter of higher taxes, bigger government and increased spending has made its mark.

the good news is that once the market understands that there is no possibility of a lefty socialist in the WH, it will rise back to its pre-Democrat levels.

bhoomes: How the support of the Bushies will be seen is something that I cannot see helping Mitt. Rudy is all but finished, and the base doesn't trust McCain. Overall, I am beginning to think you are right about Mitt being the nominee, then him and Hillary can go at each other.

AndyR3 writes
"I disagree with you on one point and that is that Mitt "would have a united party behind him." Except for the Evangelicals (his mormon faith).
Also I don't see him winning over the folks who vote for the person who they think is the most Honest."

The winning candidate, from either party, will be the one that is most successful at attracting swing voters. Of course, if they can't enthuse the base, even swing voters won't save the day. Of the top 4 candidates, the most appealing to swing voters seem to be Obama and McCain, in that order. If its Romney v HRC, Romney will have to both inspire the base, which may be impossible due to his faith, and appeal to the swingers, which he may or may not be able to do, due to his glaringly inconsistent positions on a wide array of issues. I don't see how vbhoomes can make a plausible argument that Romeny is better than McCain at both bringing out the base and drawing swing voters. That don't make no sense!

vbhoomes: the flaw in your argument is that campaign ads are one sided. The Dems have tons of $$, far more than usual. They can flood the airwaves with Mitty flip flop ads.

Not that he can't run Hillary flip flop ads too, but there is already a perception that he is a flip flopper.

And don't underestimate the power of anti-Mitt ads featuring his former constituents. They really feel he sold them a bill of goods, and then spent much of his term in office out of the state making fun of it.

'Amid the mayhem on world financial markets, it is becoming clear that capitalism's most dangerous enemies are capitalists. No one can have watched the "subprime mortgage" debacle without noticing the absurd contrast between the magnitude of the failure and the lavish rewards heaped on those who presided over it. At Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, large losses on subprime securities cost chief executives their jobs -- and they left with multimillion-dollar pay packages. Stanley O'Neal, the ex-head of Merrill, received an estimated $161 million.

Everyday Americans will conclude (rightly) that this brand of capitalism is rigged in favor of the privileged few.'

'Mitt Romney and John McCain accused each other Monday of harboring liberal tendencies, a charge bordering on blasphemy in the increasingly caustic campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.'

While I haven't reach the point that Truth_Hunter has, I have to admit that McCain's attempts to divert the topic to War over the economy is disappointing. The guy has a very consistent (except flip-flopping on Bush's tax cuts) and firm position on fiscal responsibility. Why on earth is he finding it so difficult to make the case that reigning in gov't spending will be good for the economy?

Bhoomes,
So I guess I disagree with you on one point and that is that Mitt "would have a united party behind him." Except for the Evangelicals (his mormon faith).
Also I don't see him winning over the folks who vote for the person who they think is the most Honest. Now I will agree that Hillary doesn't win them over either, but if they don't vote at all the democrats win.
I think in the end Billary would win more of the independent vote in a very nasty campaign and take the states needed to win the whole shebang.

How about "still inconclusive tuesday". It seems the delegates will be split amongst several candidates still, no landslide in sight.

but after the effects of the Pelosi recession are widely felt, the Dems having lost the effort to lose the war and having knocked the economy off its climb, the voters will know exactly who to vote for.

It will be another Reagan type landslide with 4 or 5 states going to hillary. when you run a far left candidate, it is usually a landlside like that. think Nixon/Mcgovern. Reagan/Mondale.

i understand truth's position, mark. sure, there will be other wars. there will always be other wars, unless humans evolve to a far superior state to where we are now, which is like all other beasts--fighting over scraps of meat, only we manage to do it on a grander and more murderous scale.

but the thing is, mccain seems to be so enthusiastic about it. war, war, war--that's about all he talks about. he's the opposite of obama -- totally bleak about the future. i can't image a single young person voting for him. why would they?

Truth, I know that you would not support a candidate who blithely said we will not involve ourselves in any military or naval action unless we are directly attacked. Otherwise you would have been more kindly disposed to Paul or Kucinich.

So the real question is whether one believes that wars like the Yugoslavian intervention or the Afghanistan invasion are just wars.

If you believe those were just military exercises, if you believe that a Ruandan intervention would have been just, if you can imagine these circumstances or others like it, you would come to suspect that we are not done with war, and that we require prepared armed forces.

So I would have said "There ARE going to be other wars." My usage would have been superior. :-)

sORRY FOR THE LONGER POST. i think it illustrates what the internet is for and why the gop is done. All power back tot eh people.

"Saturday January 26, 2008 08:34 EST
More disruptions to the Cheney/Rockefeller plan
Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the FISA and telecom immunity conflict, there is something quite unique about how things have proceeded that I think is worth noting. Telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers are exactly the types of issues that normally generate very little controversy or debate. Identically, the bill advocated by Dick Cheney, Jay Rockefeller and Mitch McConnell is the type of bill that is normally passed, quickly and quietly, by Congress without any trouble. That isn't happening this time, and it's worth looking at why that is.

The establishment media has virtually ignored these matters from the beginning. Most establishment-serving pundits who have paid any attention -- the David Ignatiuses and Joe Kleins and Fred Hiatts -- have done so by advocating, as usual, the Establishment position: retroactive immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers are the right thing to do. Although there is no citizen-constituency whatsoever crying out for telecom immunity or new warrantless eavesdropping powers, the forces behind those provisions are the ones which typically dictate what Congress does: namely, the largest corporations and their lobbyists, who have been working, as always, in the dark to ensure that the law they want is enacted.

That's typically the way Washington works -- the most significant laws are seamlessly enacted with little real debate or attention, driven by corporations and lobbyists working in secret with Senators, cheered on by the Serious media pundits, with bipartisan pools of lawmakers silently and obediently on board. And once those forces line up behind any measure, it is normally almost impossible to stop it -- not just stop it, but even disrupt it at all. That's the insulated Beltway parlor, virtually impervious to outside influences, least of all the opinions of the citizen-rabble.

* * * * *

All of those standard Beltway forces are squarely lined up behind telecom immunity and new eavesdropping powers, and yet, things are not proceeding smoothly for them at all. Back in December, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller and Mitch McConnell scheduled just a couple of days for the FISA debate because they assumed that was all that would be needed to deliver quickly and quietly to the President everything he demanded.

But when Chris Dodd and others impeded that plan by obstructing and filibustering, Reid just cynically assumed that once Dodd was out of the presidential race, he would cease with the "grandstanding" and allow the Senate to function the way it is supposed to: collegially delivering to the Establishment what it wants, without disruption.

But Dodd's commitment to impede these corrupt and lawless measures is clearly authentic and was not grounded in cynical political concerns -- as was obvious to anyone uninfected by the jaded Beltway Virus. Dodd's willingness to join Russ Feingold in single-mindedly pursuing what are considered extreme and alienating steps in the Senate to stop this bill -- holds, filibusters and withholding of unanimous consent agreements -- along with Dodd's increasingly eloquent and relentless advocacy on behalf of the Constitution and the rule of law, has disrupted the Cheney/Reid/Rockefeller plan just enough so that it may now unravel altogether.

Dodd has been in the Senate for 24 years. As he is the first to acknowledge, engaging in filibusters and obstruction and defiance of his party's leadership are things he has almost never done. Dodd isn't Russ Feingold. He has been the picture of the establishment Senator in the party's "liberal" wing, rarely deviating and almost never standing alone to oppose the party leadership. So what has changed? Why has he been so willing so tenaciously to pursue this fight -- even in the face of overt though anonymous threats that he could alienate his party's leadership and lose influence as Banking Committee Chairman if he persists?

Dodd himself provided the answer in his Senate floor speech (h/t Kitt):

I've promised to fight those scare tactics with all the power any one senator can muster. And I'm here today to keep that promise.

For several months now, I've listened to the building frustration over this immunity and this administration's campaign of lawlessness. I've seen it in person, in mail, online -- the passion and eloquence of citizens who are just fed up. They've inspired me more than they know.

That is exactly what happened. When the administration first demanded retroactive immunity in the wake of the passage of the Protect America Act, nobody was talking about that issue outside of blogs and grass-roots and civil liberties organizations -- the roster of annoying citizen-groups that are typically ignored. But the pressure built; it became increasingly intense and relentless; it found a political official in Chris Dodd willing to ride it; and it unquestionably has altered the course of how all of this has played out.

As a result, even the three presidential candidates have become increasingly attentive to it -- not enough, to be sure, but more than before. Strictly in response to calls from blog readers, John Edwards issued a series of statements against telecom immunity this week, even sending out a mailing to his email list solely on this topic, despite the fact that he is in the middle of a critical primary fight in South Carolina. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been making commitments to increase their involvement, with Hillary even vowing to speak out against it today. This week, Barack Obama also made his most emphatic statement to date: "I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. . . . That is why I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd and a grassroots movement of Americans who are standing up for our civil liberties and the rule of law."

The lead Editorial in The New York Times this morning is devoted to lambasting Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller for their active efforts to ensure passage of the Cheney/Rockefeller FISA bill. After failing to do so the first time around, the House in November passed a decent bill that contains no immunity and has numerous safeguards on eavesdropping powers, and -- at least as of now -- appears unlikely to capitulate. The only reason any of that happened is because enough citizens were sufficiently intense and active to catapult this issue to the fore and prevent the quiet and easy enactment of telecom immunity and new warrantless eavesdropping powers. In the absence of that, this would have all been over with, easily and without trouble, back in December.

* * * * *

There is never any shortage of super-sophisticated cynics to come along and say how none of this matters, how it's so pitifully naive to think that any difference can ever be made, how the System is so Corrupted and the Deck So Stacked Against Us that everything is doomed and defeat is the inevitable option. And there is an element of truth to the premises of that defeatist mindset. The principal reason blogs exist, after all, is precisely because all other institutions intended to provide some adversarial check on what our government does -- the establishment media, the "opposition party," the Congress -- typically do the opposite: they serve as enablers of it rather than checks on it. That's all true enough.

But what incidents such as this one conclusively demonstrate is that it is always possible, if enough citizen intensity is mustered and the right strategy is formulated, for citizens to disrupt and defeat the best-laid plans of our corrupt political establishment. There's a comfort and temptation in denying that truth. Those who insist that defeat is inevitable and All is Lost are relieved of the burdensome task of trying. But defeat occurs because the right strategy isn't found, not because it is inevitable.

As always, the significance of what has occurred here shouldn't be overstated. The only reason Senate Democrats became angry on Thursday is because Republicans actually refused to allow Democrats to capitulate, as they were ready and eager to do. Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from caving in completely to Bush because they didn't want this issue resolved. They want to ensure that Bush, in Monday's State of the Union address, can accuse Senate Democrats of failing to act on FISA, and thus attack and mock them as being weak on national security and causing the Terrorists to be able to Slaughter Us All.

And, rather pitifully, some Democrats are shocked -- so very upset -- that, yet again, their demonstrated willingness to give the Republicans everything they demanded has not prompted a Good, Nice, Courteous Response. "We did everything you told us to do. Why are you being so mean and unfair?" That sad posture is what led even Jay Rockefeller apparently to announce that he will vote against cloture on his own bill.

Worse, even if Democrats prevent the Republicans' cloture vote on Monday, that will mean we'll just be right back to where we were before that happened: with a series of votes that will almost certainly end in the Senate with some form of retroactive immunity and vastly expanded warrantless eavesdropping powers. So it isn't as though there is some victory here yet that is complete or even all that meaningful.

Andy: Mitt would easily beat Hillary, because he would have a united party behind him and Hillary wouldn't(see black vote) I do believe if Obama is nominated, he would beat Mitt in a close election because republicans like him and he could peel off enough to win.

'The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one of them.'

Posted by: harlemboy | January 28, 2008 10:04 AM

Well said harlemboy. The site of Obama and his wife whinning all last week about being targeted was such a turn off. I had supported him but now am going for Hillary. If he can't take hits from his own party wait until the GOP gets him in the crossfire.

Why would Rudy drop out after FLA (unless he pulled an Edwards)? It seems to me there would be no downside in rolling the dice for TBD Tuesday regardless of FL results. Why would he be more likely to bow out than Romney or Huck? His strategy is that he is just getting going, is it not. I did not realize his motto was "FL win or bust"...

Posted by: dave | January 28, 2008 10:33 AM

The reason I think Mayor 9/11 will drop are the only things he cares about, money and press. If he runs in NY/NJ and loses it could affect the $100k he gets for public speaking, not to mention his fees at Gulliani & Partners. And as for the Keyes photo, I don't think anyone that ugly on the inside and out could take a good picture. Maybe he should shave his but and walk backwards.

Speaking of shaves, the beard looks great Chris. As for the cute name for 2/5, just stick to reporting and the blog.

Spectator2: How could Hillary make a case against Mitt for being a flip flopper, when she has also flip flop on the Iraq War and NAFTA. I don't want to get to over confident but feel Mitt would rout Hillary the same as Obama did in SC. She's just so target rich.(See Frank Rich's column in NY Times)

Bhoomes,
So I still don't see how Romney doesn't have some of those same problems or other just as bad problems. And he doesn't have the appeal to independents that McCain has.

But on the same note if he is weak on the Economy he can pick a VP who is strong on that issue. I guess if you think Romney will be the nominee how do you see him having a snowball's chance of beating Obama or Clinton?

Could some responsible journalist please ask Senator Obama which of the GOP's ideas he is willing to adopt? He continues to talk about bringing the country together, but his positions and his record are to the left of Senator Clinton. Does he really think the Republican Party is going to rollover because he "changes the tone of the debate"? This is the same empty rhetoric that got us George W Bush.

I find it hard to grant that Romney will be the nominee. As far as Republicans are concerned, he is as deeply flawed as McCain. McCain may be a maverick who strays from core party positions and from conservative stances in some areas, but at least one can pin down what McCain believes. Romney changes positions each time he opens his mouth.

Add to this the current economic fears and that Romney left the Massachusetts economy in shambles after his tenure there, and Romney looks extremely vulnerable. Yes, he made money himself in business, but when the gloves come off, Romney will be painted as a money-grubbing rich boy who could barely pull his own state above Katrina-hit Louisiana and rust-belt Michigan in economic growth.

On an unrelated note, I find it interesting that Clinton has begun to campaign vigorously in Florida after SC. I haven't heard anything here about it yet, but given that the Democratic candidates all pledged not to campaign in Florida after the party stripped Florida of its delegates, for Clinton to suddenly reverse course and begin to promise that she will restore those delegates to Florida smacks of desperate pandering. Of course, by doing so, she'll probably pull off a win by a larger margin in Florida than Obama did in SC, and the campaign will use this to try to build momentum toward "Plain Old Tuesday," but it does impress me as a typically Clinton ugly, low blow.

I'm sorry Mark in Austin, but McCain has finally convinced me that I can't support him.

It's not just his rendition of "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran," or his support of troops in Iraq for 100 years.

What really did it was McCain's latest Dr. Stangelove pronouncement... "There's going to be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

Even if this is macho talk is intended to divert attention from economic issues, it's a mindset that almost guarantees four more years of Bushiness.... no way.

I glad you brought this up AndyR3. Contrary to CW, McCain would be our weakest nominee for three reasons. 1st: He would have to spend time and money just trying to shore up his Republican base. 2nd: He's been a Washinton insider way to long and comes across as a grumpy old man living in the past. And 3rd: With his temperment and how easy he gets angry, the Dem. nominee would make a plausible case with all of his bellicose statements about starting Wars, you couldn't trust him not to blow a gasket and gets us into an unnecessary War. And for a kicker, if its about the economy, he's on record about being clueless in this area.

Bhoomes,
The reason that I think McCain will beat Romney is three fold.
First and foremost is name recognition. McCain has almost universal name ID and if general has very high approval ratings (even if the GOP faithful). Now I know that die hard folks don't like him but the majority of america does.
Which leads to point two. He has the best chance of beating either Obama or Clinton. And I would bet that he will use the electability argument in the next debate.
Third, Romney will never, I repeat NEVER, get the evangelical vote (about 20-30% of the GOP). He may get some but not nearly enough to make up for the folks that will go to McCain if Huckabee bows out. To these folks it is much more important to be consistently pro-life, then what you vote on campaign finance reform.

I also wanted to point out the in the state where they faced head to head and Romney won, he spent like 5 times as much as McCain. Even with his fortune he can't do that in states like California, and NY where McCain will do well.

CC,
The Campaign 2008/Primaries and Caucuses site is really nice and pretty well done. My one minor pick is that the thumbnail pic of Alan Keyes is perhaps the most unflattering photo I have ever seen of any candidate. Please tell me his campaign did not send this to use. Otherwise, it should be changed.

It also seems to me that pundits as well as many posters are continuously stating candidate A has to do well in this (pick your name) state or it means the end of the road. I believe that both Obama and HRC have been "written off" that way, certainly Edwards has. Huck, McCain, Guiliani, Romney have all had the same written about them. I think it's time to realize this is a different kind of primary, accept that and enjoy the battles that are likely to keep going at least through TBD Tuesday.

If you are going to write for the WPost and it will be "nonstop" and you actually get paid for it, "2/5" would be the shortest. Nobody has that as a choice, not even Cillizza, who will be doing the work AND get paid.

"Feb5" has Greatest Show On Earth febrile emotionallity of it all in four little strokes of the key pad.

"SUPER TUESDAY": as George Will wrote, what a clanky jalopy of busted gaskets and failing bolts bona fide shipwreck of a phrase.

After the last Dem debate, this next one is must see TV. Because of that, it is virtually assured to be boring and lack any of the explosiveness of the last one. But I, for one, will be watching because it appears you can never count out the Dems trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. From a reality TV POV, I hope that there will be sparks. I will also be watching the R's because I have yet to decide on a candidate. I hope this will be a bit more informative and exciting than the last one but I doubt it.

CC - "A win for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) could well seal the party nod for him while anything other than a victory or close second-place finish for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani likely all-but-ends his chances at the nomination."

Why would Rudy drop out after FLA (unless he pulled an Edwards)? It seems to me there would be no downside in rolling the dice for TBD Tuesday regardless of FL results. Why would he be more likely to bow out than Romney or Huck? His strategy is that he is just getting going, is it not. I did not realize his motto was "FL win or bust"...

The argument against Tsunami Tuesday is the fact the February 5th will likely NOT deliver a knockout blow because of the way delegates are awarded proportionally. It is likely that the battle will go on, but with one candidate carrying the mantle of Big Mo and the other working furiously to attract enough delegates to keep his or her opponent from declaring victory for the party nomination. It may be that the super delegates will deliver the tsunami at the convention.

It captures the magnitude of the event, the multi-state nature of it, the tremendous odds (look at all the money spent on worthless tickets by Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards, and either of Clinton or Obama), the myriad strategies candidates must choose from that could lead either to victory or detox at Gamblers Anonymous, the inherent mystery/randomness that will keep pundits modest in their otherwise extravagant claims of clairvoyance and the unprecedented haul of delegates and Big Mo that accrues to the winner.

A lot of people say that the Republicans are "befuddled" and scared because they can't figure out how to run a campaign against Obama, but I think that's naÃ¯ve nonsense. They will fight dirty, so the question is: can Obama fight back? The Clinton machine's attacks on him are nothing compared to the onslaught which would come his way later in the year. Many voters like what they see and hear from Obama so far, at least on the surface, but he remains largely undefined for the vast majority who have not read his books. We can certainly expect that the Republicans will attempt to define him in a way which conforms to their narrative.

Excerpts from "Lessons of 1992," By PAUL KRUGMAN, The New York Times, January 28:

It's starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there's a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton's campaign 16 years ago.

Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn't the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it's worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal's editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what are the lessons for today's Democrats?

First, those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s -- a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy -- are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one of them.

I have no idea what some of you guys (Chuck Todd, etc:) are smoking but there is absolutley no doubt in my mind that Romney will be our nominee. I don't know if its your adoring eyes for McCain or you really know better and just trying to help McCain as much as possible. The GOP nomination will be decided by Republicans, not you or the NY York Times. Get over it.